Cook v. Rockett

                                                                Office of the Director
                                                                 13:57:01 2023.08.28        New Mexico
                                                                                            Compilation
                                                                               '00'06-      Commission
                                                                     2020.005.30514
          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Opinion Number: 

Filing Date: February 27, 2023

No. A-1-CA-39597

KURT COOK and HECTOR RANGEL,

      Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

LAWRENCE ROCKETT, JONATHAN
FRENCH, and DARLENE FRENCH,

      Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY
R. David Pederson, District Court Judge

Burns Law Group, P.C.
Mitchel S. Burns
Farmington, NM

for Appellants

Dugan & Associates, P.C.
Thomas P. Dugan
Durango, CO

for Appellee Lawrence Rockett

The Law Offices of Tyson K. Gobble
Tyson K. Gobble
Farmington, NM

for Appellees Jonathan French and Darlene French

                                       OPINION

BUSTAMANTE, Judge, retired, sitting by designation.

{1}     This case provides a tricky problem regarding stipulated judgments and statute of
limitations. Plaintiffs Kurt Cook and Hector Rangel appeal the district court’s decision
that their complaint—based wholly upon an order from an earlier case in 2001—was
barred by the statute of limitations for judgments. See NMSA 1978, § 37-1-2 (1983,
amended 2021). 1 We hold that stipulated judgments that reflect contractual
arrangements between parties are not subject to the statute of limitations in Section 37-
1-2. We therefore reverse the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint, and
remand to the district court for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

{2}    The following facts are taken from Plaintiffs’ complaint and the attached exhibits. 2
In 2001, Ernie Martin and Mary Hegwer had a legal dispute over property in Farmington,
New Mexico. At that time, Martin was the owner of 515 East Main Street (Main
Property), and Hegwer owned the abutting property at 434 East Broadway Street
(Broadway Property). In August 2001, Martin and Hegwer entered into an agreement
that granted Martin, his heirs, or assigns, a right of first refusal to purchase the
Broadway Property. The parties read the agreement into the record to the district court.
The district court signed off on the agreement and entered an order in October 2001
(the order). The relevant portion of the order states:

        [Martin], his heir or assigns, shall have the right of first refusal to purchase
        [Hegwer]’s property. Said right of first refusal shall be exercised within 30
        days of presentation of any bona fide, legitimate offer by a ready, willing
        and able purchaser. Said offer shall be accompanied by an appraisal from
        a licensed appraiser. [Martin] is granted the option of purchasing the
        property for the same terms and conditions as indicated in the bona fide
        offer, or if the offer is greater than the appraisal plus ten percent (10%),
        then [Martin] may purchase the property for the appraised value plus ten
        percent (10%). Said right of first refusal shall run with the property and
        may be executed on all or part of [Hegwer]’s property that she may decide
        to sell. Said right of first refusal shall also be binding upon [Hegwer]’s heirs
        or assigns. If [Martin] does not exercise his option within 30 days of
        receiving notice of an offer that triggers the option, the option shall
        terminate. [Hegwer] is under no obligation to sell the property, except
        under the terms contained herein.

The order was recorded with the San Juan County Clerk a week later.


1All references to Section 37-1-2 in this opinion are to the 1983 version of the statute, which was in effect
in 2001.
2The district court inexplicably made findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its order despite
the fact that it was based on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Derringer v. State, 

,

, 

. (“A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim . . . tests the legal sufficiency
of the complaint.” (citation omitted)). The findings do not address each factual allegation in the complaint
and do not contradict what was pleaded, thus we accept all facts as true for the purposes of our
background section. See Morales v. Reynolds, 

, 

, 

 (noting
that in reviewing a motion to dismiss we accept “all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and resolv[e]
all doubts in favor of the sufficiency of the complaint” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
{3}     Hegwer deeded the Broadway Property to herself and Defendant Lawrence
Rockett in May 2003 and recorded the deed with the San Juan County Clerk in June
2004. Hegwer died in July 2009, leaving Defendant Rockett as the sole owner of the
Broadway Property. Defendant Rockett then sold the Broadway Property to Defendants
Jonathan and Darlene French in March 2018. Defendant Rockett did not present a bona
fide offer and appraisal to the owners of the Main Property before the sale of the
Broadway Property.

{4}     Plaintiffs and the prior owner of the Main Property first learned of the sale of the
Broadway Property in mid-September 2019. Plaintiffs, the current owners of the Main
Property, purchased the Main Property in late-September 2019. Plaintiffs secured a
licensed appraiser, who appraised the Broadway Property at a value of $120,000.
Plaintiffs mailed a letter to Defendant Rockett exercising the option to purchase the
Broadway Property for the amount of the appraisal plus 10 percent in January 2020.

{5}     In February 2020, Plaintiffs filed this complaint against Defendants and asserted
claims for declaratory judgment, specific performance, quiet title, and breach of
contract. In lieu of an answer, Defendant Rockett filed a Rule 1-012(B)(6) NMRA motion
to dismiss. He argued that because the claims asserted by Plaintiffs were based on a
judgment that was filed more than eighteen years ago, and the statute of limitations for
actions founded upon a judgment is fourteen years, see § 37-1-2, the statute of
limitations barred Plaintiffs’ complaint. After a hearing on the motion, the district court
dismissed the action with prejudice. In its order, the district court adopted findings of fact
and conclusions of law, in which it noted the findings of fact were not disputed by the
parties. Plaintiffs appeal.

DISCUSSION

{6}   Plaintiffs argue (1) the right of first refusal in the order is a contract and not a
judgment subject to Section 37-1-2; (2) the fourteen-year limitation period in Section 37-
1-2 does not begin until the right of first refusal option has arisen; and (3) the order was
a conveyance of a future option to purchase property pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section
47-1-12 (1903) and not a judgment within the meaning of Section 37-1-2.

{7}    Generally, we review a district court’s decision to dismiss a case under Rule 1-
012(B)(6) de novo. Delfino v. Griffo, 

, 

, 

.
However, the district court granted Defendant Rockett’s motion to dismiss after
considering the transcript of the August 2021 hearing and making findings of facts and
conclusions of law. We therefore treat the district court’s action as granting summary
judgment in favor of Defendants. See id. ¶ 10 (“We review motions to dismiss as
motions for summary judgment when the district court considered matters outside the
pleadings in making its ruling.”); First Sw. Fin. Servs. v. Pulliam, 

, ¶ 4,

, 

 (treating the district court’s action as summary judgment
when the district court granted a motion to dismiss after reviewing affidavits filed by the
opposing party).
{8}    “Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Self v. United Parcel
Serv., Inc., 

, 

, 

. As the parties do not
disagree on the facts, and the issue before us is whether the order should have been
dismissed as a matter of law, our review is de novo. See Dominguez v. Perovich Props.,
Inc., 

, 

, 

 (reviewing a motion for
summary judgment de novo when the parties presented no genuine issues of material
fact).

{9}    To the extent we must engage in statutory interpretation, our review is de novo.
Generally, “[i]n construing the language of a statute, our goal and guiding principle is to
give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” Grisham v. Romero, 

,

. “In determining legislative intent, we look to the plain language of the
statute and the context in which it was enacted, taking into account its history and
background.” Pirtle v. Legis. Council Comm., 

, 

.

{10} The statute of limitations for judgments states, “Actions founded upon any
judgment of any court of the state may be brought within fourteen years from the date of
the judgment, and not afterward.” Section 37-1-2. We must determine if the order is
subject to this statute of limitations. We hold it is not and explain.

{11} We start with the order. Defendants argue that the order “had the earmarks of a
default judgment since Mr. Martin and Ms. Hegwer both failed to produce the written
agreement ordered by the trial court.” Defendants rely on the fact that Martin and
Hegwer were told by the district court to reduce their agreement to a writing, but failed
to do so, and the order does not bear the signature of the parties or their counsel. We
disagree.

{12} The order is titled “Stipulated Final Judgment and Order.” The parties agreed to
the terms of the order in front of the district court. The order states, “THIS MATTER,
having come before the Court for final hearing on August 28, 2001, the parties being
present and represented by counsel, the Court having heard the stipulation of the
parties, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises,” before making findings. The
district court judge signed the order, despite neither the parties nor their attorneys
signing it. Based on our review, the order is, at its core, a stipulated judgment. See
Maestas v. Martinez, 

, ¶ 15, 

, 

 (“Where an
issue to be determined rests upon the interpretation of documentary evidence, an
appellate court is in as good a position as the [district] court to determine the facts and
draw its own conclusions.”); see also Benavidez v. Benavidez, 

,

, 

 (“The same rules of interpretation apply in construing the
meaning of a court order or judgment as in ascertaining the meaning of other written
instruments. The plain meaning of the language used is the primary indicator of intent.”
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

{13} A stipulated judgment, otherwise known as a consent judgment, “is a negotiated
agreement between the parties that is entered as a judgment of the court.” Pope v. Gap,
Inc., 

, 

, 

. “[S]tipulated judgments
have characteristics of both judgments and contracts.” Allred v. N.M. Dep’t of Transp.,

, 

. Stipulated judgments are “similar to a judgment
because [they are] entered and enforceable as a judgment; however, [they are] like a
contract because [their] terms and conditions are reached by the mutual agreement of
the parties.” Pope, 

. Stated more clearly, stipulated judgments
are “achieved by negotiation and settlement, rather than by a full-blown, contested
adjudication of all issues.” Id. ¶ 27 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “As a
general rule, a stipulated judgment is not considered to be a judicial determination, but a
contract between the parties.” Allred, 

 (alteration, internal
quotation marks, and citation omitted); see Lewis v. City of Santa Fe, 

, 

, 

 (“It is well established in this state that settlements
and judgments entered by the consent of the litigants essentially represent contractual
agreements.”). As the order is a stipulated judgment, and considered a contract
between the parties, see NMSA 1978, § 37-1-3(A) (2015) (providing a statute of
limitation for contracts in writing), the district court erred in applying the statute of
limitations for judgments.

{14} Defendants argue that Section 37-1-2 applies to all types of judgments, even if
the order could be considered a contract. We acknowledge that the plain language of
Section 37-1-2 refers to “[a]ctions founded upon any judgment of any court,” and does
not in its plain language limit the form of the judgment to which it applies. “However, if
the plain meaning of [a] statute is doubtful, ambiguous, or if an adherence to the literal
use of the words would lead to injustice, absurdity or contradiction, we will construe the
statute according to its obvious spirit or reason.” Baker v. Hedstrom, 

, 

 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

{15} Applying Section 37-1-2 to all judgments, including stipulated judgments, would
lead to absurd results. Defendants’ argument would invalidate all previous stipulated
judgments that are more than fourteen years old. For instance, here, it was clear that
the parties agreed to the terms laid out at the August 2001 pretrial hearing—including
the right of first refusal. The district court memorialized the agreement in the order. One
party cannot discharge their responsibilities by simply waiting fourteen years. Contracts
should be enforceable so long as matters are outstanding. Further, Defendants’
argument would lead to absurd results for other actions like declaratory judgments and
quiet title actions. See NMSA 1978, § 44-6-2 (1975) (providing that in a declaratory
action, district courts have the authority to “to declare rights, status and other legal
relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed”); NMSA 1978, § 42-6-1
(1951) (establishing a cause of action for quiet title). Legal declarations arising from
declaratory judgments and quiet title actions memorialized in a judgment do not lose
effect after fourteen years. Finally, Defendants’ argument would hamstring a district
court’s ability to settle cases because it would require every future agreement
memorialized by the district courts to be enforced within fourteen years. This would
unreasonably limit judicial authority and impair district courts’ ability to oversee and
encourage settlements, which would waste judicial resources. Therefore, we decline to
construe Section 37-1-2 such that it would lead to such absurd results.
{16} Defendants next argue that, even if the order is a contract, the statute of
limitations for contract rights would have expired in 2007 based on Section 37-1-3(A).
Defendants misconstrue the statute. “It is a fundamental principle of contract law that
the statute of limitations on a breach of contract claim runs from the date the contract is
breached.” Brooks v. State Farm Ins. Co., 

, 

, 

 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Based on the facts
before us, the statute of limitations began running at the September 2019 sale of the
Broadway Property, not when the district court entered the stipulated judgment.

{17} Defendants’ final argument is that “[a] cause of action founded on a judgment
expires when the judgment expires even though separate rights and causes of action
are present” and that “the existence of a valid judgment is a prerequisite to any cause of
action founded on the judgment.” Defendants cite only to Western States Collection Co.
v. Shain, 

, 

, 

, for these propositions. Shain is
based on a discrete issue—which statute of limitations, the statute of limitations for
judgment liens or judgments, controlled for the foreclosure of a judgment lien. Id. ¶¶ 2-6.
At the time, no statute specifically provided a statute of limitation for judgment liens, but
a four-year limitation was enacted for all actions not otherwise provided or specified, id.
¶ 5, and seven-year statute of limitations was provided for judgments. Id. ¶ 4. Our
Supreme Court noted that “[t]he existence of a valid judgment is a prerequisite to the
existence of the lien,” id. ¶ 13, and there is “no reason upon principle for denying the
existence of the lien, so long as the judgment itself possesses full vitality.” Id. ¶ 14
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It then concluded that “the period of
limitation applicable to judgment liens is . . . seven years . . ., with the important
qualification . . . that the enforceability of the judgment lien expires with the judgment
upon which it is founded.” Id. ¶ 16. Shain simply does not support Defendants’ broad
argument or require a different result in this matter.

{18} We conclude that a stipulated judgment is not subject to the fourteen-year statute
of limitations in Section 37-1-2 under principles of contract law, and Plaintiffs’ complaint
is not barred by the statute.

CONCLUSION

{19} We reverse the district court’s decision to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, and
remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

{20}   IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge,
retired, sitting by designation

WE CONCUR:

KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge
GERALD E. BACA, Judge